Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question. -first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015 -did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council -did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl. -TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search. "We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD So any suggestions on where to go, what to say?
Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question.
-first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015
-did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council
-did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl.
-TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver
Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search.
"We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing. Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015. Demerits disappear in 2yrs Insurance in 3yrs :)
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing.
Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years". Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law. Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving. No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs. If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot... $7,000 total. And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you! Now more on this... So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
250alp wrote:
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted. Convicted in absentia??
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government. The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that. But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that.
But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention. I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
argyll wrote:
The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention.
I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders! Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign. I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy. Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe. If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about. Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts. Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
argyll wrote:
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right.
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders!
Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign.
I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy.
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about.
Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts.
Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed. I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
jsherk wrote:
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed.
I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401. I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401.
I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ? Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ?
Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us." Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen "I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)" Check your facts
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us."
Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen
"I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)"
You also quoted incorrectly... Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL) 2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms: I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) or I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
You also quoted incorrectly...
Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL)
2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms:
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
or
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
Hi, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
